The endorsements of political candidates are inversely proportional to public awareness of the contest. The more that voters are tuned into an election, the less power an endorsement has to sway anyone’s vote.
Want proof of that?
Consider this year’s wild race for the Republican presidential nomination. Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee, got fewer endorsements from party leaders — not to mention newspapers and other media outlets — than almost any other candidate in the field. Yet, he easily won most of the primaries and caucuses.
Mississippi was a good example. The endorsements were largely divided between Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Trump’s main two challengers by the time the March 8 primary was held. Didn’t matter. Trump still got almost half of the state’s primary vote, beating Cruz by 11 points and Kasich by nearly 40.
Thus, the news this week of who in the GOP establishment, now that the inevitable has sunk in, is backing Trump and who is not doesn’t really matter a whole lot. Particularly worthless are the endorsements of late comers to the Trump party, such as former U.S. Sen. Trent Lott — who has switched from Kasich to Trump — or Gov. Phil Bryant — who has switched from Cruz to Trump — think. There’s not much credit to give those, after their horse has come up lame, who get behind the one that’s already crossed the finish line.
In the end, this election is going to be decided by the moderates in each party and independents. They will care little about what other politicians, current or former, have to say. These voters will know more than enough about Trump and his presumptive challenger, Democrat Hillary Clinton, to make up their own minds about which one is best-suited to be in the Oval Office. By the time November rolls around, they will be sick of the election.
Most of them will be disappointed with either choice. And we suspect, if they vote at all, they will hold their noses and vote for Clinton, no matter who gets what endorsements.
